For more than four decades, international policy has tried to bring about changes in the mullahs’ regime through concessions, agreements, and diplomatic openings. But the result is clear:
The nuclear program has continued; neither negotiations nor the 12-day war have resolved it so far and cannot resolve it.
This regime has not stopped destabilizing the region and is constantly lurking for another opportunity.
Protests inside the country are brutally suppressed. The 1988 massacre, in which more than 30,000 political prisoners – mostly supporters of the People’s Mojahedin Organization – were killed, has remained unpunished. Now the regime is taking revenge for all its defeats on political prisoners; executions are on the rise. This reminds me of my father and six members of my family who were executed by this regime. For more than 46 years, families in Iran have lived in fear. Why, really?
Yes, the policy of appeasement has only strengthened a murderous regime and given it time to kill, suppress, and destabilize the region and the world.
The reality is that there is a realistic and morally correct third way:
Support for the people of Iran and their organized resistance for peaceful regime change.
This concept has been formulated by Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). Her slogan:
“Neither war nor appeasement – but change through the people themselves and the organized resistance.”
She has presented a ten-point plan for a democratic Iran – with clear and universal values:
- A free, democratic, and secular government
- No nuclear weapons
- Separation of powers and an independent judiciary
- Freedom of expression and party pluralism
- Gender equality
- Abolition of the death penalty
Why this option is the only option
The third option is not idealism, but the only sustainable strategy that is beneficial both for the people of Iran and for regional and global security. Because:
- This regime is not reformable – its violence is systematic.
- The people of Iran have clearly stated what they want: no dictatorship – neither with a turban nor with a crown.
- This resistance is structured, has an international network, and is politically legitimate.
Freedom needs clarity
Churchill’s criticism of the policy of appeasement was not warmongering, but a call for moral clarity.
Even today, naming the reality requires courage:
Not a stance between negotiation or war, but a choice for the people of Iran and the Iranian resistance.
The third option is not a theoretical construct. It is a political and moral necessity.
 —–
Safora Sadidi is a distinguished human rights advocate and a member of the Women’s Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. Ms. Sadidi, who has lost her father and six members of her family at the hands of the clerical regime, has devoted more than two decades to the Iranian Resistance in the areas of human rights, women’s rights and international policy on Iran.
